**I'm going to preface this with an acknowledgement that too many of you who hold with Darwinism demonstrate excessive levels of hatred, profanity, and downright rudeness, if not certain irascibility, which precludes a lot of people from arguing with you. Learning civility may be more elusive than learning the science of life.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I saw that a couple of days ago. There's only one problem with Lenski and his 30,000 generations: It's never going to get where it needs to go in the time given. Of the ~100,000 [somebody check that] generations that supposedly separate us from the chimps, you're going to need more than two or three "double jump" mutations to gain advantage, to adapt our body plans, generate self consciousness, Bach, Newton, etc.

There's a limit to what Darwinism can accomplish, Lenski has found what Behe wrote about last year, that the observable rates of mutation cannot go much of anywhere -- hence "The Edge of Evolution." When you need more than one mutation -- two or three to gain your advantage -- that increases the unlikelihood exponentially, which, one more time, has been demonstrated scientifically. It took trillions of cells to do this -- how could that possibly scale to humans? Or any other lifeform that can't have ever existed -- even cumulatively -- in those quantities? Maybe you guys weren't listening last year what I posted on this? The edge is there, and they've found it again, just like they found it in chloroquine resistance. What it took to get there is what makes evolution unviable.

Now, you can choose to have faith that evolution suddenly happened in all animals, everywhere, constantly for hundreds of thousands of generations -- but back at the lab, under controlled conditions, that just isn't happening.

(You are more than welcome to your faith-based positions, of course.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Um, I don't know. how far are we going get with one double jump mutation every 30,000 generations?

????

How far?

Hell, ShawnJ, believe what you want, but we aren't finding you guys any favors in the lab. The numbers just keep getting worse, the complexities just keep increasing. And like I said, if they could have put together an simple organism on paper in a stepwise fashion -- and don't think they don't have the software or proc cycles to to do it -- they would have done it by now, and it would be on the front page of every periodical from Nature to Newsweek.

**I'm going to preface this with an acknowledgement that too many of you who hold with Darwinism demonstrate excessive levels of hatred, profanity, and downright rudeness, if not certain irascibility, which precludes a lot of people from arguing with you. Learning civility may be more elusive than learning the science of life.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I saw that a couple of days ago. There's only one problem with Lenski and his 30,000 generations: It's never going to get where it needs to go in the time given. Of the ~100,000 [somebody check that] generations that supposedly separate us from the chimps, you're going to need more than two or three "double jump" mutations to gain advantage, to adapt our body plans, generate self consciousness, Bach, Newton, etc.

There's a limit to what Darwinism can accomplish, Lenski has found what Behe wrote about last year, that the observable rates of mutation cannot go much of anywhere -- hence "The Edge of Evolution." When you need more than one mutation -- two or three to gain your advantage -- that increases the unlikelihood exponentially, which, one more time, has been demonstrated scientifically. It took trillions of cells to do this -- how could that possibly scale to humans? Or any other lifeform that can't have ever existed -- even cumulatively -- in those quantities? Maybe you guys weren't listening last year what I posted on this? The edge is there, and they've found it again, just like they found it in chloroquine resistance. What it took to get there is what makes evolution unviable.

Now, you can choose to have faith that evolution suddenly happened in all animals, everywhere, constantly for hundreds of thousands of generations -- but back at the lab, under controlled conditions, that just isn't happening.

(You are more than welcome to your faith-based positions, of course.)

You show an amazing lack of the power of parallization. Evolution happened on a parallel scale so VAST that we cannot even begin to mimic it on the level you so desire to see for your proof. 1:30,000,000 is a really small number when you are dealing with scales of 10^100 candidate reactions early in evolution. An experiment operating on something less than 10^10 scales just wont show anything more than noise.

You show an amazing lack of the power of parallization. Evolution happened on a parallel scale so VAST that we cannot even begin to mimic it on the level you so desire to see for your proof. 1:30,000,000 is a really small number when you are dealing with scales of 10^100 candidate reactions early in evolution. An experiment operating on something less than 10^10 scales just wont show anything more than noise.

To the doubters... reality is an immensely complex thing and all of the formulae and theories haven't yet come close to a 'grand unified theory' that encompasses this vast puzzle. Nonetheless, this clear evidence on a micro scale is proof positive of evolutionary processes at work.

Every single generation evolved something, some of these were reported - bigger cells - faster glucose growth rates - and dont forget that all the bacteria were in a very very similar fixed environment, so the selection pressure would be extremely limited.

But lets not overlook the fact, that every generation evolved something and just because it wasn't apparent, or had not been tested for, it still happened.

Um, I don't know. how far are we going get with one double jump mutation every 30,000 generations?

????

How far?

Hell, ShawnJ, believe what you want, but we aren't finding you guys any favors in the lab. The numbers just keep getting worse, the complexities just keep increasing. And like I said, if they could have put together an simple organism on paper in a stepwise fashion -- and don't think they don't have the software or proc cycles to to do it -- they would have done it by now, and it would be on the front page of every periodical from Nature to Newsweek.

Even though weve now actually seen evolution occurring in a laboratory, apparently the only evidence that would actually do, its still not good enough because human beings are more complex than bacteria. Yes, even though evolutions been documented and the results are even repeatable, theres no significance in the experiment because other organisms are more complex.

I thought it would be Yes, but God didnt invent bacteria! or some other form of bacteria doesnt count.

Go to your room. Dont act the giddy goat. Behave yourself. Ikkle snookums. Other patronising epithets and requests designed to make the bad sensible people go away by conceiving of them and the things they say as naughty children. Now dont talk back to your father, dmz, Im really displeased now. OK BUSTER NO CHOCOLATE PUDDING FOR A MONTH.

It should take mere minutes for this solid evidence to be decried as fraudulent by "intelligent design" fans.

I've read through the article and the thread, but let me address this point. I consider intelligent design a real possibility, provided it is in its truest form. There are those (both for and against it) that pervert it into something it's really not--or at least---shouldn't be. I myself subscribe to a version of it, though I also think the evidence for evolutionary theory is overwhelming. In other words, evolution clearly takes place...but where did it begin? Secondly, who is to say evolution itself is not guided by a higher power?

Ironically, the best example is the very experiment to which you linked. An intelligent creature, that being a man, began the experiment. The bacteria didn't show up in the lab on their own. They didn't throw a shitload of proteins and amino acids and what not into a jar and voila! Life!

I also think that the article overstates what actually happened. OMG! A mutation!

Quote:

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

So the bacteria organized themselves into a higher life form, then (any type of higher life form?). Is there evidence this may happen after say, 1,000,000 generations? It just seems like a very small change, even if it is "random."

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Not just a mutation, but a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success in a given environment; which is what evolution is.

dmz:

The sheer number of generations here should not be surprising given the fact that these E.Coli had virtually no environmental pressures put on them at all. Only a handful of things in their given environment were "worth" reacting to reproductively, and you'll notice that the big change noticed involved one of those few things (an ability to "eat" a nutrient they previously had not been able to, but had been around).

Compare that one specific environment (a petri dish in a fridge in a uniform culture) vs. the practically-infinite different ecologies and weather systems across the universe over time.

If you don't understand what I mean, just let me know and I'll clarify further.

Basically God/s exist/s as part of a contractual arrangement for the individual to obtain whatever it is they feel they lack or want.

eg Eternal life, health or wealth, reassurance that acquired wealth is acceptable and possibly even retained in the afterlife, acquisition of land or prestige, victories,vengeance on their enemies etc

So as individuals change their requirements, God/s must evolve to suit.

When a God no longer meets the requirements set by the worshipper, they are neglected in favor of alternatives till they become extinct, as in the Gods of the Romans and Greeks. That is why all Gods demand constant worship, without it they die.

Ironically, the best example is the very experiment to which you linked. An intelligent creature, that being a man, began the experiment. The bacteria didn't show up in the lab on their own. They didn't throw a shitload of proteins and amino acids and what not into a jar and voila! Life!

Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.

Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not actively interfere with, induce, or direct the mutations during the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.

Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.

Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not direct the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.

Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.

No, you're right. I realize they are essentially separate issues.

Quote:

Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not actively interfere with, induce, or direct the mutations during the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.

That's true. Then again, we know that "things like this" happen already. It doesn't disprove that there may well be or have been something/someone guiding our own evolutionary processes.

And...just to throw a wrench into things here: Who is to say that a higher power didn't guide this particular experiment?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Not just a mutation, but a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success in a given environment; which is what evolution is.

That's directly contradicted by this:

Quote:

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

dmz:

The sheer number of generations here should not be surprising given the fact that these E.Coli had virtually no environmental pressures put on them at all. Only a handful of things in their given environment were "worth" reacting to reproductively, and you'll notice that the big change noticed involved one of those few things (an ability to "eat" a nutrient they previously had not been able to, but had been around).

Compare that one specific environment (a petri dish in a fridge in a uniform culture) vs. the practically-infinite different ecologies and weather systems across the universe over time.

If you don't understand what I mean, just let me know and I'll clarify further.[/QUOTE]

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I said that what they observed a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success, which is what evolution is.
What you quoted says that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome.